> A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy - William B. Irvine
I read this, and have nothing bad to say about it per se. I think Stoicism in the classic sense is very under-appreciated these days, and it's good to have a book to serve as an introduction. But I personally found it to be very repetitive. The historical context part is worth reading in my opinion, but apart from that you'd be better off reading something like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations instead, or some of the other classics.
Edit: Or if you're interested in a contemporary overview, I found AC Grayling's What is Good? to be much more insightful. Its central theme is also a search for some form of "philosophy of life", like Irvine's book, but it doesn't cover just Stoicism. Instead it covers many more philosophies, and I think it's a much richer book because of it since it gives you a much broader context, even if you end up adopting a Stoic outlook.
you'd be better off reading something like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations instead, or some of the other classics.
Incidentally, I'm trying to read Meditations now, but it's not an easy reading and it goes very slowly. Maybe I'll be able to put in on my 2015 list of influential books?
I think the particular translation you have makes a big difference, as with a lot of these older texts. I found it very readable because the sections were so short and the language pretty clear, but I was reading the Martin Hammond translation.
e.g. just compare the first few lines from the version on Project Gutenberg:
"Of my grandfather Verus I have learned to be gentle and meek, and to refrain from all anger and passion. From the fame and memory of him that begot me I have learned both shamefastness and manlike behaviour."
and the same lines from the Hammond translation:
"From my grandfather Verus: decency and a mild temper.
From what they say and I remember of my natural father: integrity and manliness."
Obviously a matter of personal preference though, but it's worth shopping around for a translation before you start reading, and the Gutenberg versions tend to be the most archaic (which doesn't necessarily even mean they're more accurate, I think it was just the fashion back then to translate classic texts into a more formal prose).
In the last year I replaced my copy of Meditations, which I didn't like very much, and surveyed most of the existing translations in the process, comparing them to each other and to the original Greek.
Maxwell Staniforth's was my favorite, being both faithful to the original and easy to read. Hammond plays too loosely with the material, IMO.
Meditations is not a book you read cover to cover. It's rather repetitive, and says the same things in different ways, hence the name: meditations.
It's a book you dip into. I was once introduced to the esoteric art of bibliomancy; and as much as I can't take such a practice seriously, it does seem to work on books that are simply fantastic. Open up meditations, at any page, read it for 10 minutes and put it down. The chances are the passage will be highly pertinent and insightful.
The certainty is that you will feel nice, deep feelings of enlightenment, but that has very little to do with the content of the book used in your enlightenment-ritual.
The first time I read Meditations I read the Gregory Hays translation. It's written with very colloquial language and makes for a great entrance to the book.
Marcus Aurelius is an overrated bad philosopher.
a) he takes a high moral position but persecuted christians in his kingdom (he is just a fascist in modern terms)
b) he should have chosen to write in his native tongue instead he chose greek (according to jean-luc marion, wrote in bad greek), which makes me think he was just a pretentious guy who wanted to join the ranks of the great greek philosophers.
If you want to understand Meditations and Marcus Aurelius, you should read The Inner Citadel by Pierre Hadot. For instance, there are good reasons for his writing in Greek, for the format of the book, for the repetitiveness, etc.
I read this, and have nothing bad to say about it per se. I think Stoicism in the classic sense is very under-appreciated these days, and it's good to have a book to serve as an introduction. But I personally found it to be very repetitive. The historical context part is worth reading in my opinion, but apart from that you'd be better off reading something like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations instead, or some of the other classics.
Edit: Or if you're interested in a contemporary overview, I found AC Grayling's What is Good? to be much more insightful. Its central theme is also a search for some form of "philosophy of life", like Irvine's book, but it doesn't cover just Stoicism. Instead it covers many more philosophies, and I think it's a much richer book because of it since it gives you a much broader context, even if you end up adopting a Stoic outlook.